|
May 21, 2003
Chief Bruce I.
Knight
Natural Resources Conservation Service
U.S.
Department of Agriculture
1400 Independence Avenue, S.W.
Room 5105A
Washington
,
D.C.
20250-2890
Dear Chief
Knight:
On behalf of our organizations’ millions of members and
supporters, we write out of concern that the Final Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) Rule is released in violation
of the law.
EQIP
has the potential to aid in the conservation of important
natural resources. If
the program is not administered and implemented thoughtfully,
however, it also has the potential to have significant negative
impacts on the environment.
This is particularly true of EQIP funding directed
towards manure management on Concentrated Animal Feeding
Operations (CAFOs), but also applies to the direction of funds
to other practices, such as the conversion of wetlands to deep
irrigation ponds. In
light of the large investment of taxpayer dollars in EQIP under
the new Farm Bill, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
should correct the procedural and substantive problems with its
Final EQIP Rule by conducting an adequate Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and by withholding funding from areas identified
in this letter until an EIS is completed.
NRCS
concludes in the Supplementary Information released with the
final rule that allowing EQIP funding to be used by CAFOs for
structural practices will increase the conservation benefits of
the program, even if these funds go to new and expanding CAFOs
or CAFOs located in floodplains.
We
cannot agree that providing funding for manure management at
CAFOs will, by itself, ensure conservation benefits.
To the contrary, the substantial environmental and public
health risks associated with CAFOs are well documented and
increasingly wide spread. It
is essential for the national NRCS office to ensure that
taxpayer dollars are not used to perpetuate the status quo and
that funds meant to protect and enhance the environment are not
diverted into technologies and practices that actually degrade
natural resources and pose significant public health risks.
Many CAFO waste handling systems, for example large-scale
liquid manure lagoons and effluent sprayfields, including those
designed or approved by NRCS, have inherent design flaws and are
operated in a manner that guarantees significant releases of air
pollutants, catastrophic spills of manure, urine and other
wastes, significant odor problems, health threats from
antibiotic resistant pathogens, and long-term, chronic
environmental degradation.
Under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), a Federal agency proposing
a major action that may significantly affect the quality of the
human environment must conduct the appropriate level of
environmental review. In
February, 2003, the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS)
issued a draft Environmental Assessment (EA) and draft Finding
of No Significant Impact (FONSI) for its proposed Environmental
Quality Incentives Program (EQIP) rule.
Comments submitted to NRCS within the 30 day comment
period put NRCS on notice that its draft EA and FONSI are
inadequate under the law. NRCS’s
final EA and final FONSI failed to address these comments and
are inadequate under the law for the same reasons the draft EA
and draft FONSI were inadequate under the law.
In both the draft and final EA and FONSI for EQIP, NRCS
considered six alternatives that “describe different ways to
allocate EQIP funds to the states.”
The minor issue of allocation of EQIP funds to the
states, including alternative methods of allocation, was the
only issue considered in both the draft and the final EA and
FONSI. The Farm
Security and Rural Investment Act of 2002 (the 2002 Act) (Public
Law 107-171), however, leaves open several much more substantial
environmental questions with respect to EQIP to be addressed
administratively. The
administrative resolutions to these questions made by NRCS have
the potential to significantly affect the quality of the human
environment. These
issues, however, are not analyzed and no alternatives related to
them are considered in either the NRCS’s draft or final EA and
FONSI. Under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), an Environmental
Assessment must consider alternatives if there are unresolved
conflicts over natural resources.
An EA must describe the potential negative environmental
effects of the proposed action as well as of alternatives,
including the direct, indirect, and cumulative effects.
In
the EQIP Proposed Rule’s Economic Analysis – Executive
Summary, Tier Two, NRCS acknowledged that in drafting the Rule,
it has wide latitude in how it chooses to distribute EQIP
funding to livestock operators and whether it chooses to
distribute any
funding to CAFOs. In
fact, the summary states, “With the promulgation of [the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency’s CAFO] rule, EQIP can no
longer claim environmental benefits from treatment of large
producers, since they must comply with CAFO regulations.
EQIP resources would therefore be most efficiently used
in treating the next largest non-regulated class of
producers.” NRCS
further acknowledged, in its EQIP Proposed Rule with Request for
Comments, Optimizing Environmental Benefits section, that the
implementation of EQIP has potential “adverse ancillary
impacts” and that NRCS, in developing the Rule, has the
ability to limit those adverse ancillary impacts.
The purposes of EQIP under the 2002 Act are to promote
agricultural production and environmental quality as compatible
goals, and to optimize environmental benefits.
The way in which NRCS exercises its administrative
discretion in the implementation of the changes to EQIP in the
2002 Act has the potential to significantly affect the quality
of the human environment. These
changes include: allowing, for the first time in the program’s
history, livestock operations with 1,000 animal units (AU) or
above to be eligible for cost-share payments for structural
practices related to manure management; authorizing far greater
levels of funding for EQIP than provided under previous law;
lifting the dollar maximum per individual or entity from $50,000
to $450,000; decreasing the minimum term of contract from five
years to one year beyond the date of completion of the project;
and changing the amount of EQIP funds that must be targeted to
natural resources concerns related to livestock production from
50 percent to 60 percent.
These legislative changes have created numerous open
questions, to be resolved by NRCS in its EQIP rule.
Alternatives related to these questions should be
included in an adequate environmental analysis under NEPA.
These questions include, among others: (1) whether the
use of EQIP funds for structural practices related to manure
management for operations located in floodplains has the
potential to significantly affect the quality of the human
environment; (2) whether the use of EQIP funds for structural
practices related to manure management for new Concentrated
Animal Feeding Operations (CAFOs) has the potential to
significantly affect the quality of the human environment; (3)
whether the use of EQIP funds for structural practices related
to manure management for Animal Feeding Operations (AFOs)
expanding to CAFOs has the potential to significantly affect the
quality of the human environment; (4) whether the use of EQIP
funds for structural practices related to manure management for
expanding existing CAFOs has the potential to significantly
affect the quality of the human environment; (5) whether
entering into contracts of up to $450,000 for industrial
infrastructure has the potential to significantly affect the
quality of the human environment; and (6) whether the use of
EQIP funds for the conversion of wetlands to deep irrigation
ponds has the potential to significantly affect the quality of
the human environment. Pursuant
to NEPA, alternatives analysis for each of these issues should
address potential direct, indirect, and cumulative effects on
air and water resources, soil quality, wildlife, food safety, as
well as social and economic impacts.
Our organizations believe that the issues raised in the
questions above could have significant negative impacts on the
human environment including, but not limited to, negative
impacts on water quality, air quality, and federally listed
threatened and endangered species.
Because
NRCS failed to provide the proper level of analysis, an
Environmental Impact Statement, for all of the issues discussed
in this letter, its Final EQIP Rule runs counter to the law both
procedurally and substantively.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) should
correct the procedural and substantive deficiencies with its
Final EQIP Rule by conducting an adequate Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) and by withholding funding from areas identified
in this letter until an EIS is completed, namely the use of EQIP
funds for manure management associated with CAFOs and the
conversion of wetlands to deep irrigation ponds.
Sincerely,
Defenders of
Wildlife
Susan Prolman, Government Relations Counsel
Friends of the
Earth
Sara Zdeb, Legislative Director
The
Humane Society of the
United States
Wayne Pacelle, Senior Vice President, Communications and
Government Affairs
Global
Resource
Action
Center
for the Environment (GRACE)
Christina Salvi, Factory Farm Program Associate
National
Audubon Society
Perry Plumart, Legislative Director
National
Campaign for Sustainable Agriculture
Kathy Lawrence, Executive Director
National
Catholic Rural Life Conference
Br. David Andrews, CSC, Executive Director
Natural
Resources Defense Council
Melanie Shepherdson, Project Attorney, Clean Water Project
Sierra Club
Navis Bermudez, Associate
Washington
Representative
Sustainable
Agriculture Coalition
Ferd Hoefner, Washington Representative
Waterkeeper
Alliance
Jeffrey Odefey, Staff Attorney
cc: Charles
Whitmore
Director of Conservation Operations
Natural Resources Conservation Service
US Department of Agriculture
Washington
,
D.C.
20250
|
